[AdvaitaToZen] Creation by the Numbers

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote:

>

> In a message dated 2/8/05 9:10:08 AM, thecentercannothold writes:

>

>

> > > The pythagorians theorized that the substance of all things

> > > were numbers and that objects were only the perception

> > > of mathematical ratios. Curiously, this view seems   to be

> > > upheld by modern physics, which affirms the only difference

> > > between one element and another is the different number

> > > of identical protons and neutron in the nucleus. And of course,

> > > each proton attracting a negative charged electron.

> > >

> > > So form is numbers. One is a point; two is a line; three, a

> > triangle,

> > > four a square, etc. Substance is irrelevant, and numbers reign

> > > supreme as the creator because even considering that there is

> > > one underlying substance to all things, this substance, by the

> > mere

> > > fact of having no second, is inapprehensible and therefore,

> > moot.

> > > Only multiplicity creates.

> > >

> > > And how could this be so?   Simple, think of a machine made

> > only

> > > of iron. It's no different, in nature, from a solid chunk of the

> > same metal ,

> > > but

> > > quite different in function because the different shapes of its

> > parts

> > > when properly assembled gives it qualities and functions

> > absence

> > > in a solid chunk of iron.   So is the universe, a living machine,

> > created by

> > > the magic of numbers out of the same unknown stuff.

> > >

> > > Pete

> >

> > ah, you're getting close to taoism, here (I really feel it's time for a

> > ressurgence of taoist thought...).  the next step is to recognize

> > that what distinguishes one number from the next; what

> > distinguishes an iron machine from an iron ingot, is empty

> > space.  there is a conceptual space between " 1 " and " 2 " that

> > can't be bridged without destroying the concepts " 1 " and " 2 " ;

> > there is space around each iron component that defines it's

> > shape, and space between each iron component that allows

> > relation and movement.

> >

> > however, would you mind my asking for a definition of " living

> > machine " ?  :-)

> >

> > Hi Ted,

>

> Yes, you are right, numbers by themselves can't account

> for the sophisticated behavior of machines, or living beings.

> A random assortment of parts will be just an inert pile. So

> we must add organization to mere numbers. This opens the

> issue of how could a complex organizational system such as life

> come about spontaneously. Of course, chance and unlimited

> time is one way.There could be billions of barren universes

> beside this one. Another possibility is, as you mentioned,

> topography. We know now that gravity is believed by scientist

> to be nothing but the curvature of space. Could the other remaining

> forces, electromagnetism, the strong and weak force, and other

> of the so-called laws of nature be also due to still unknown topography?

> Could the topography of still undiscovered dimensions account for all the

> laws which made life possible? That very well could be the case.

>

> Pete

 

 

 

 

 

Yes indeed............life......given enough information...will probably figure

everything

out................It getting closer every day..........Isn't it?

 

 

toombaru